俱舍論頌疏論本 30.3

30.3

又犢子問：「佛何不說命者都無？」答：「亦觀問者阿世耶故。問者謂蘊因果相續名為命者，依此發問。世尊答命者都無，彼墮邪見，謂無因果，故佛不說。」又問：「佛何不說假名命者？」答：「觀彼問者未能得了緣起理故，非受真空正法器故，故不為說假有命者，理必應爾。如世尊告阿難陀言：『有性筏蹉（此云犢子）出家外道來至我所，作是問言：「我於世間為有我、非有我？」』佛不為記。所以者何？若記為有，違法真理，實無我故。若記為無，增彼愚惑，彼便謂我先有今無。對有我愚，此無我愚為過更甚。若執有我，則墮常邊；若執無我，便墮斷邊。執我是常，為我修福；執我斷滅，便謂身無，更何修福。此二輕重，如經說言：寧起我見如須彌山，不起斷見如芥子許。」上來依論略此問答。

The Vātsīputrīyas also asked: "Why did the Buddha not say that a life-principle is completely non-existent?" The reply: "Also because he took into consideration the disposition of the questioner. The questioner regarded the continuum of causes and effects of the aggregates as the life-principle, and asked based on this. If the World-Honoured One had answered that the life-principle is completely non-existent, the questioner would have fallen into wrong views, thinking there are no causes and effects; hence the Buddha did not say so." They also asked: "Why did the Buddha not state that the life-principle is a nominal designation?" The reply: "Because he considered that that questioner was not yet able to understand the principle of dependent origination and was not a suitable vessel for receiving the true Dharma of true emptiness; therefore he did not speak to him of a conventionally existent life-principle. The principle must certainly be like this. As the World-Honoured One told Ānanda: 'The wanderer of non-Buddhist tradition, Vatsagotra (here translated as 'Vātsīputra'), came to where I was and asked: "Do I, in the world, have a self, or do I not have a self?"' The Buddha did not declare an answer for him. Why? If he had declared that it exists, it would contradict the true principle of Dharma, because in reality there is no self. If he had declared that it does not exist, it would have increased his delusion, and he would have thought that a self existed before and now does not. Compared to the delusion of having a self, this delusion of not having a self is an even greater fault. If one grasps that a self exists, one falls into the extreme of eternalism; if one grasps that a self does not exist, one falls into the extreme of annihilationism. Grasping that the self is eternal, one cultivates merit for the self; grasping that the self is annihilated, one then thinks the body does not exist, so why cultivate any more merit? Regarding the gravity of these two, as a sūtra says: 'Better to give rise to a view of self as large as Mount Sumeru, than to give rise to an annihilationist view as small as a mustard seed.' The above summarizes these questions and answers based on the treatise.